Higher education reform should focus on the right goals
James H. McCormick
September 7, 2004
Everybody, it seems, has an idea about how to change higher education in Minnesota.
A Citizens League study group is tackling the subject at the invitation of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and the Star Tribune recently offered several ideas of its own and others on its editorial pages. Before we get too far down the road, we should be sure we are really asking the right questions.
First, we must be careful not to erode the educational foundation that has made Minnesota a leader among states. While Minnesota is just 21st in the nation in population, we are eighth-highest in the percentage of people over age 25 who have a bachelor's degree or higher, and seventh-highest in per capita income. Whatever we do in the name of change should result in increasing Minnesota's national rankings.
The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Board of Trustees, and I as chancellor, believe it is the responsibility of public higher education institutions - the 32 state colleges and universities within our system, and the University of Minnesota - to meet the changing demands of our students, employers and the state. We welcome proposals for change, but they must be changes that move us in the right direction.
In 1996, the Minnesota Legislature listed five objectives for the state's investment in higher education. They can be paraphrased into five questions to test any proposal for change:
- Will it lead to a level of educational quality and excellence that is competitive nationally and internationally?
- Will it enable students to choose institutions and programs best suited for their talents and abilities?
- Will it promote democratic values and enhance the state's quality of life?
- Will it provide an opportunity for all Minnesotans, regardless of personal circumstances, to participate in higher education?
- Will it enhance the economy and prepare a workforce that meets the state's needs and opportunities?
Frankly, some of the changes that are now under discussion do not meet these tests.
For example, a proposal to once again restructure higher education would do little to further those objectives.
Almost 10 years ago, Minnesota made a bold move when it undertook a major restructuring of higher education. Three public higher education systems - the state universities, the community colleges and the technical colleges - were merged into the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system. The University of Minnesota remained a separate system.
I observed this merger from another state, and was impressed by the vision of its proponents. It has taken some time, but this arrangement is now working very well. It has greatly improved the ability of students to transfer smoothly from one institution to another and has established an infrastructure and a culture that encourages collaboration by state colleges and universities with each other and with the University of Minnesota. Undoing or redoing the 1995 restructuring would be expensive and disruptive and would cause instability to a higher education model that needs continuity to meet the challenges ahead.
Changes to the way higher education is financed also need to be measured against the state's goals, particularly the goal of enabling students to choose institutions and programs best suited to their abilities. Some additional questions to ask: How would any proposed change increase access to educational opportunity for low-income students, students of color, first-generation college students and students for whom English is a second language? How would it increase the ability of adult students, many of whom can attend school only part time, to upgrade their skills or change careers? How would it help employers find enough skilled and educated workers to make their businesses succeed? How would it increase support for business and industry, especially the education and training of key employees? How would it increase the college participation and success rates needed to meet the state's future needs? How would it drive economic development, especially in greater Minnesota?
In my view, our challenge is to provide the number of college-educated people the state will need to strengthen its economic vitality in the future. And as baby boomers begin to retire and the number of people in the 18- to 25-year-old age group drops slightly, this challenge will loom even larger.
Since fall 2000, full-year-equivalent enrollment at the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities has grown by 18,000 students, or more than 15 percent, while state funding has dropped nearly 6 percent in actual dollars. The per-student state appropriation for the 2004-05 academic year is $3,990, lower than it was in 1994-95. Our dedicated faculty and staff are working hard to maintain quality, but these budget cuts, coupled with increasing demand, are challenging our ability to serve business and community needs and stressing our facilities.
To partially replace lost appropriations, tuition has risen 60 percent since fall 2000, placing an increasing financial burden on students, many of whom can't afford it. Despite significant operational improvements, budget cuts and program eliminations, we are facing an uncertain future and the real possibility that Minnesotans' access to higher education will be diminished.
To assure that Minnesota continues to benefit from its public systems of higher education, I suggest that we focus on proposals for change that:
- Aggressively respond to the state's changing demographics and do more to reach out to low-income families, people of color, people whose parents have not gone to college and those for whom English is not their first language.
- Increase the capacity of our colleges and universities to attract and educate more students, both recent high school graduates and older adults looking to upgrade their skills.
- Dramatically improve the success rates of all students, whether they are seeking a degree, diploma, certificate, or simply taking a course or two to improve their marketability.
- Substantially expand our ability to contribute to job growth and economic success.
Our abilities to educate a successful workforce, bring new immigrants into the mainstream, move people from welfare to work, and support community and economic development are being threatened. Without positive change, the taxpayers who fund our colleges and universities will have less access to them and fewer benefits from them.
